Jeanne Tarrant1 , Joshua Weeber2 , Domitilla C. Raimondo3 , Dewidine van Der Colff3 , Shae-Lynn E. Hendricks3 , Maphale S. Monyeki3

1. Anura Africa/Amphibian Specialist Group

2. Endangered Wildlife Trust

3. South African National Biodiversity Institute

Published

November 5, 2025


amphibian

Hyperolius pickersgilli, a species that has received extensive conservation focus over the last decade in South Africa. These efforts have resulted in its protection level improving from poorly protected in 2018 to moderately protected in 2025. Image credit: © Tyrone Ping.

22%
of 135 taxa assessed are
Threatened
73%
of 135 assessed taxa are
Well Protected
~80%
of threatened amphibians are considered
under-protected

Key findings

  • In the current assessment, 135 taxa have been evaluated, and 82 (61%) of these species are endemic or near-endemic to South Africa, Eswatini, and Lesotho.

  • Twenty-two percent of assessed amphibians (30 species) are threatened with extinction, with another 10% (13) assessed as Near Threatened.

  • Thirty-nine percent of South Africa’s endemic amphibians are threatened with extinction, placing full responsibility for their protection on South Africa.

  • Amphibians are becoming increasingly threatened with extinction, even though only three species have experienced a genuine increase in threat status; many species are still experiencing ongoing pressures.

  • The main pressures causing population declines are invasive and other problematic species, impacting 83% of threatened species. Impacts range from infectious diseases to drying out and replacement of habitat by invasive alien plants. This is followed by habitat loss and degradation due to agricultural activities (72%) and natural system modification (69%) related to, for example, wetland drainage, overgrazing, and inappropriate fire cycles. Recognized as the most important emerging threat globally, climate change impacts are also becoming an important driver of amphibian declines in South Africa affecting nearly half of threatened species, although the impacts of this threat are challenging to quantify.

  • A large proportion of amphibians are assessed as Well protected (73%) within the South African Protected Area Network; however, 11% (15) of amphibians are Not Protected. Of the 29 threatened species, 79% are considered under-protected (Moderately Protected, Poorly Protected or Not Protected). Meaning that our most threatened species require improved protection, and most protected areas do not consider amphibians in their management activities.

  • Almost 50% (17) of South Africa’s threatened species occur in the Western Cape province. Given the high endemicity within this province, and the disproportional number of endemic species that are threatened, this spatial pattern is not surprising. The Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal provinces support six threatened species respectively.

Species richness map
Figure 1. Species richness map of threatened amphibian species in South Africa.

Protection level

The protection level assessment was conducted for 133 of South Africa’s 135 described amphibian species. Two peripheral taxa with less than 5% of their distribution in South Africa were excluded from the analysis. Protection level (PL) categories include ‘Poorly protected’, ‘Moderately Protected’, ‘Not Protected’ and ‘Well Protected’, Protection levels were calculated for amphibians by intersecting amphibian occurrence records with the protected area spatial layer, and calculating the area required to protect a target population of 10 000 individuals. Protection levels were also adjusted based on the management effectiveness of protected areas.

Figure 6. Protection level for amphibians was assessed for 133 taxa. Analysis excluded peripheral taxa (those with less than 5% of distribution range occurring in South Africa); (A) shows the protection level for all taxa; (B) shows the protection level for South African endemics

Overall, the 2025 PL was higher than in 2016. While close to 72% of amphibians are considered well protected, 22% are poorly or not protected. Species-specific management within protected areas is generally lacking for amphibians, with7% (9 species) less well protected once we took PA management effectiveness into account. For the 75 endemic amphibians assessed, 57% are Well Protected, 17% (13 species) are Not Protected, and a further 17% (13 species) are Poorly Protected. Sixteen highly threatened (CR and EN) species are under-protected.

Figure 7. The mosaic of wetland habitat at the Nuwejaars Wetlands Special Management Area where the Micro Frog, Microbatrachella capensis was discovered in 2021. Alien clearing efforts and population density estimates are currently underway using M. capensis as a management target. © Keir Lynch Bionerds

Nine species have had improvements in their protection level, from Poorly Protected to Moderately Protected (8 species) or Well Protected (1 species). Examples of threatened species that have benefitted from improved protection include the Endangered Micro Frog (Microbatrachella capensis), Pickersgill’s Reed Frog (Hyperolius pickersgilli), and the Cape Platanna (Xenopus gilli). In the case of H. pickersgilli, an additional 16 sites have been confirmed for the species since 2017, with several of these occurring within protected areas4. Habitat protection gains have been a key outcome of the coordination of the Biodiversity Management Plan for this species, with several sites (totaling 127 hectares) being declared through the Biodiversity Stewardship Programme, as well as improved management and wetland health for these, and existing protected areas4. For M. capensis, the confirmation of the species in the Nuwejaars Wetlands Special Management Area in 2021, which is now being managed with the frog as a management target, has resulted in both an expansion of the species’ range with Protected Areas, as well as improved management effectiveness scores from fair to good. It is important to recognize the contribution to the protected area estate that Biodiversity Stewardship and conservation servitudes (or OECMs) through agreements with landowners for targeting unprotected populations of species makes.

Figure 8. The previously Critically Endangered Micro Frog, Microbatrachella capensis, is now listed as Endangered due to its discovery at a new locality, it has also changed protection status from Poorly Protected to Moderately Protected resulting in a range extension. © Alouise Lynch Bionerds

Species recovery

As part of the Red List process for southern Africa, the Amphibian Ark (AArk) joined the expert workshop and worked with the coordinators to produce a Conservation Needs Assessment (CNA) for threatened South African amphibian species5. This used a process developed by AArk to determine which species have the most urgent conservation needs, based on action plans that combine in situ and ex situ actions, as appropriate. Six South African species were identified as needing ex situ conservation actions, including ex situ rescue (n = 5) and ex situ research (n = 1). Due to their level of threat, the five species recommended for ex situ rescue are also recommended for biobanking. Twenty-five species were recommended for in situ conservation, and 34 species are recommended for in situ research, while 15 species were identified for conservation education programs.

In addition, subsequent work to identify species requiring urgent recovery under Target 4 of the Global Biodiversity Framework resulted in 10 species being prioritised. This includes threatened endemic species and those of regional importance that might go extinct even if their habitat is protected. This speaks to the level of targeted management within protected areas that has not traditionally been focused on for amphibians and the need for research into responses to management interventions.

South Africa has a relatively proactive community working on amphibian conservation and research, with NGOs, provincial authorities and various universities contributing to building conservation evidence for assessing the effectiveness of conservation interventions and growing the body of knowledge on amphibian taxonomy, behavior and ecology (Table 4). This in part was guided by the conservation and research strategy compiled following the 2010 Red List assessments6, demonstrating the value of these processes, with plans in place to update this strategy following the most recent assessments. While good strides have been made, amphibian conservation capacity remains overlooked and underfunded compared to other taxa7, and this is particularly pertinent in the African context.

Box 3. Title

Add text

remove the syntax “” for inserting the images replace existing with appropriate images for current page

Knowledge gaps

add text

References

SANBI?

1. Butchart, S.H.M. et al. 2004. Measuring global trends in the status of biodiversity: Red list indices for birds. PLoS Biology 2: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020383
2. Re, wild. 2023. Synchronicity earth, IUCN SSC amphibian specialist group. Re:wild, Texas, USA.
3. Angus, O. et al. 2023. In a rough spot: Declines in arthroleptella rugosa calling densities are explained by invasive pine trees. Austral Ecology48(3: 498–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/aec.13273
4. Armstrong, A.J. et al. 2025. Collaborating for conservation: The first five years of implementation of the biodiversity management plan for pickersgill’s reed frog, hyperolius pickersgilli’. African Biodiversity & Conservation 55: 7. https://doi.org/10.38201/abc.v55.7
5. Brunner, R. et al. (eds). 2025. Conservation needs assessment workshop report for threatened south african amphibian species 2024. Amphibian Ark.
6. Measey, G.J. (eds). 2011. Ensuring a future for south africa’s frogs: A strategy for conservation research, SANBI biodiversity series 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
7. Guénard, B. 2025. Limited and biased global conservation funding means most threatened species remain unsupported. Proc. Natl Acad.Sci 122: 2412479122.